[SDCBC] ignoring a detour & bike lane closed signs
Gene Carman
gcarman at san.rr.com
Sat Jun 9 09:10:47 EDT 2007
The problem with your conclusion is that a detour is offered to
cyclists. The bike lane closed sign does not indicate anything to a
motoring society that does not evaluate cyclists as equals on the road.
To further exemplify this, note the size of typical simple bike signs
along any bike route or bike lane, dramatically smaller than any
informational signs that motorists must be aware of, thus further
exemplifying that cyclists are "secondary" road users.
Motorists are often under the misconception that bikes don't belong
on "their roads," and this is reinforced by narrow lanes, small
signs, and other hints that society places to indicate the "proper
place" for cyclists. It therefore should not be unexpected for
motorists to believe that a bike lane closed sign means nothing to a
motorist.
Now if that sign was accompanied with a detour sign that simply said,
"move left," perhaps the motorist could reasonably expect to
encounter cyclists along that route.
Just as if a sign said trucks exit or no truck route, a motorist
would not have any expectation to find trucks beyond those signs.
At 04:26 AM 6/9/2007, Tony Pietsch wrote:
>Hello Richard,
>
>I'd like to use this as a test of my LCI training and my
>understanding of the discussions held in the SDCBC board meetings
>and on our email lists -- I don't pretend to be a legal expert, and
>I'd like to hear from Jim Baross and John Forrester as to whether my
>understanding and interpretation of current law is correct.
>
>First, I think that you've addressed the majority of the
>responsibility issue in the first sentence. The BIKE LANE CLOSED is
>an unmistakable warning TO THE MOTORIST that they will have to share
>the right hand lane with cyclists. Some might argue that this is too
>similar to the ROAD CLOSED signage with detour that requires ALL
>non-local VEHICULAR TRAFFIC to take the detour. Bicycling is a
>right (no license is required to be able to ride) while motoring is
>a privilege that all motorists pay for and are tested for competency
>before being licenced to drive on their own. That is the basis for
>the fundamental difference in interpretation of the signage.
>
>Consequently, the detour sign here is a RECOMMENDATION to cyclists
>uncomfortable with the temporary loss of a previously designated
>bike route, and provides an alternative that will utilize (we hope)
>alternate routing that does fit into that category. In no way does
>the detour sign require a cyclist to use the detour if it does not
>require a motorist to use that same detour.
>
>Under strict interpretation of current law as I understand it this
>places the entire responsibility on the motorist for the accident --
>the old adage that ignorance of the law regarding signage (and this
>might include members of a jury if one is present) is no excuse for
>not following the law, and that should be the end of the argument.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>BUT
>
>Getting into the reality of education level and expectations of both
>motorists and cyclists is where the remainder of your discussion gets fuzzy.
>1. Yes, most motorists and inexperienced cyclists interpret the BIKE
>LANE CLOSED to mean the same for bicycles as ROAD CLOSED does for
>motorists, and
>2. consequently the expectation would be that cyclists would be
>required to follow the detour sign (but they're not required to;
>it's just a common misunderstanding perpetuated by the similarities
>in the signage wording).
>3. Yes, the cyclist could have made her/him-self more visible by
>riding closer to the center of the right lane (taking the lane), but
>fear drives inexperienced riders as close to the right as they can
>travel in the mistaken belief that it is safer to ride there.
>4. Absolutely the motorist should have moved to the left hand lane
>when his vision was obscured by the curve and his rate of travel.
>5. From your description of the officer's report the motorist was
>young, inexperienced and driving too fast - all major contributions
>to the collision.
>6. Other contributing factors such as time of day, road debris,
>wind, etc. were not mentioned and may shift perceptions of either or
>both the cyclist and motorist during the encounter.
>
>For instance, was the bike lane closure just for a short or much
>longer distance (percieved danger level); was the closure sign
>placed within sight of the bike lane closure or separated by a
>distance that made the closure uncertain. I personally have
>experienced many times where BIKE LANE CLOSED signage was installed
>far away and up to months before any construction was performed and
>the bike lane obstructed, as well as signage that the construction
>company "forgot" to remove after construction was complete and the
>lane closure was no longer appropriate. The list of mitigating
>circumstances is practically endless.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SO
>
>I'd like believe that the motorist was entirely responsible for the
>collision under strict interpretation of the law, but I may be wrong
>based on my limited legal knowledge.
>Whether you can get a jury that will consist largely of misinformed
>motorists that have come to perceive roads as their entitlement to
>agree to that is what you get paid for, and I don't envy you the task.
>
>I hope this helps,
>Tony Pietsch
>
>
>----------
>From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org
>[mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org] On Behalf Of Richard Duquette
>Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:12 PM
>To: sdcbc at bikesandiego.org
>Subject: [SDCBC] ignoring a detour & bike lane closed signs
>
>List mates Confidential & Privileged
>
>Id like to get your perspective regarding a potential issue that
>involves a bicyclist that (for sake of discussion) ignored a detour
>& bike lane closed sign.
>
>The cyclist is alleged to have then ridden close to the right side
>of the road edge cement barrier (that was constructed for a quarter
>mile) in order to get to his destination on the late afternoon
>weekend.Taking the detour would have taken her about 3 miles out of her way.
>
>As luck would have it, a young man drove his car around the slight
>right bend in the road that was partially obscured by the cement and
>plywood barrier in the slow lane edge and side swiped the cyclist,
>causing injuries and ripping off the cars right side mirror at the same time.
>
>The defense is that the cyclist should have ridden out of his way
>several miles,even tho he has the right to the road as a cyclist,
>and avoided riding near a cement barrier that partially hid him
>from oncoming traffic.
>
>I suspect the motorist should and could have driven in the fast lane
>and had better vision, and the officer suspects the motorist was
>traveling too fast for the conditions...construction site and all
>with the barriers.
>
>Do you feel the cyclist is with out fault or would you apportion
>responsibility in this case. If so, what are the percentages.??
>
>Thanks in advance for your opinions.
>
>Richard L. Duquette
>Bicycle Injury Lawyer since 1983
>Carlsbad, CA
>760-730-0500
>www.911law.com
>_______________________________________________
>
>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as gcarman at san.rr.com
>To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to
>http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc
>List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup
>For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send
>e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070609/9176707c/attachment.html
More information about the SDCBC
mailing list